Search

To determine the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with having concurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) at the time of surgical resection of a renal mass.We identified 108,430 patients undergoing elective partial or radical nephrectomy for a renal mass from 2013 to 2017 using the Premier Healthcare database. The association of VTE with 90-day complication rates, mortality, ICU admission, readmission, and direct hospital costs (2019 US dollars) was determined with multivariable logistic regression and quantile regression models, respectively.Of the 108,430 patients who underwent elective partial or radical nephrectomy, 1.2% (n = 1301) of patients were diagnosed with a preoperative VTE. Patients with preoperative VTE have higher rates of minor (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence inteval [CI] 1.34-1.62, P.0001) and major complications (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.23-2.86, P.0001), mortality (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.6-2.57, P.0001), and readmissions (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.57-1.90, P.0001) compared to patients without preoperative VTE at the time of nephrectomy. Notably, the predicted probability for a major complication was significantly higher among patients with preoperative VTE who underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy, irrespective of the surgical approach utilized. Furthermore, rates of all types of complications except endocrine and soft tissue were significantly increased in patients undergoing nephrectomy with preoperative VTE compared to those without VTE.VTE at the time of nephrectomy is associated with significantly higher rates of major complications, increased mortality, and higher overall costs. Taken together, these findings have important implications for the counseling and management of renal masses in presence of VTE.

PURPOSE: Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented. METHODS: Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns. RESULTS: Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Historically, the interlacing of strands at the molecular level has mainly been limited to coordination polymers and DNA. Despite being proposed on a number of occasions, the direct, bottom-up, assembly of molecular building blocks into woven organic polymers remained an aspirational, but elusive, target for several decades. However, recent successes in 2D and 3D molecular-level weaving now offers new opportunities and research directions at the interface of polymer science and molecular nanotopology. This Perspective provides an overview of the features and potential of the periodic nanoscale weaving of polymer chains, distinguishing it from randomly entangled polymer networks and rigid crystalline frameworks. We review the background and experimental progress to date, and conclude by considering the potential of molecular weaving and outline some of the current and future challenges in this emerging field.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can provide downstaging and improve margin negativity for borderline resectable and resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma [(B)RPC]. Little is known about the relative efficacy of capecitabine (CAPE)-based vs. gemcitabine (GEM)-based 3-week chemoradiation (3WCRT) with 36 Gy in 15 fractions. This study aimed to compare the odds of achieving surgical resection, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 3WCRT with concurrent CAPE versus GEM. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, examining medical records from a single center for patients with (B)RPC treated with 3WCRT between 1/2009–12/2020. Odd ratios (OR) of achieving surgical resection were estimated using logistic regression for univariable and multivariable analyses. Median TTP (mTTP) and median OS (mOS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of progression and survival in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in the analysis. Twenty-two (71%) patients were treated with CAPE, while 9 (29%) were treated with GEM. All patients in the GEM group were borderline resectable, vs. 18 (82%) patients in the CAPE group, P=0.30. Nineteen (86%) patients in the CAPE group were treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, vs. 4 (44%) patients in the GEM group, P=0.03. The CAPE group had higher odds of achieving surgical resection [OR =9.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–58.20]. Adjusting for covariates, the odds of achieving surgical resection were still statistically higher in the CAPE group vs. the GEM group (OR =25.34; 95% CI: 1.14–563.72). The CAPE group had superior mTTP compared to the GEM group (15.4 months, 95% CI: 4.9–71.1 vs. 4.0 months, 95% CI: 0.4–14.5; P=0.01), corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.14–0.81). Adjusting for covariates this effect persisted; the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for progression was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08–0.77). Cox proportional hazards analysis also demonstrated that the CAPE group had superior OS compared to the GEM group in unadjusted (HR =0.13; 95% CI: 0.04–0.40) and adjusted models (HR =0.13, 95% CI: 0.03–0.52). CONCLUSIONS: For neoadjuvant 3WCRT, this hypothesis-generating study suggests concurrent CAPE may be a more effective radiosensitizer than GEM for patients with (B)RPC.